By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
In November 2015, just before the faithful gathered around their capering, gibbering witch-doctors and shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of thanks and praise, hugs and back-slapping, the Inconvenient Pause lengthened to 18 years 9 months. One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution had occurred since February 1997, yet on the then RSS dataset the 225 months since that month had shown no global warming at all (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS version 3.3 satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset showed no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings had occurred during the period of the Pause.
The accidental delegate from Burma had provoked shrieks of impotent fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Qatar in 2012, when he had said the Inconvenient Pause had endured for 16 years. Almost three years later, the Pause was almost three years longer. Senator Ted Cruz, chairing a Senate committee on global warming, waved Fig. 1 at the “Democrats” in the Chamber, to their discomfiture.
Then came the naturally-occurring el Niño of 2015/2016, ending the Pause. But there stood the Pause, still on the record-books, a standing indictment of the profiteers of doom and their inept climate models’ half-baked but overcooked predictions of rampant warming followed by a lurid catalogue of plagues of which the Psalmist at his most excitable would have been proud – except that they did not occur.
At the time I made a prediction of my own. I said that Dr Karl sMears of RSS, whose dataset had shown the Inconvenient Pause but who publicly derides those of us who ask questions about the Party Line as “denialists”, would soon allow the Party to prevail upon him to announce that the Inconvenient Pause was a mistake and that he would thereafter airbrush it away by some a of statistical prestidigitation.
Sure enough, the very next month he announced that the RSS dataset was going to be revised. Version 3 was no longer Politically Correct. All hail Version 4, which has recently become available. To see the extent of the tampering – er, make that “revision to allow for the previously-unheard-of phenomenon of orbital decay in the satellites”, Comrade – I plotted the 18 years and 9 months of temperature data from February 1997 to October 2015 using the new RSS data. Fig. 2 is the result.
Figure 2. Same period as Fig. 1, but this time using RSS v. 4.0 rather than v. 3.3.
Hey presto! No more Inconvenient Pause! All gone! Vanished into thick air! Just like that! Amazing! Zowee! Look! A quarter of a degree of global warming where there was none before! It’s worse than we thought!
Except that it isn’t. In 1990 the IPCC had predicted global warming from 1990 to 2025 at a rate equivalent to 2.8 K/century. But the RSS warming rate over the 18 years 9 months of the Airbrushed-Out Pause, according to the new and exciting data approved by the Politburo, is equivalent to less than half of IPCC’s originally predicted central rate.
We Want More Orbital Decay, And We Want It NOW! A rate of warming equivalent to little more than 1 degree per century is not enough. The Party has published many books saying there will be 6 degrees of warming, and some papers predicting up to 13 degrees. The RSS dataset still does not conform to the Party Line.
Now, one might think that RSS, an outfit whose sole task is to gather data from satellites, would know something about – er – as it were – satellites. These days, it’s not particularly difficult to adjust for orbital decay in real time using the GPS satellites, which by their nature must constantly correct themselves for it.
But the RSS team would now like us to believe they made no adjustments for orbital decay until recently, so that the Pause was really – really and truly – cross my heart and hope to die – trust me, I’m a climate scientist with a Party badge an’ all – an artefact of the slow decline in the altitude of satellites in orbit. As we say down the pub, “Pull the other one, squire – it’s got bells on.”
One might also think that the journal that published the sMears paper radically revising one of the two satellite global-temperature datasets would have taken the trouble to get the controllers of the other satellite dataset – John Christy and Roy Spencer of UAH – to peer-review it.
Roy Spencer had predicted the apparat would not do that. He was right. The apparat didn’t. John and Roy have dared to question the Party Line – politely, scientifically, and continuously. Therefore, they are Unpersons who do not – or, even if they do, should not – exist. Only one viewpoint is permissible – the Party Line. So they must not be consulted but insulted (and even shot at).
The orbital-decay ploy is not even new. Some years ago, while a leading climate scientist was putting the finishing touches to a paper showing a low climate sensitivity, he sent me a copy of the draft and I noticed that, since he had begun work on it, a new series of the satellite data on which he had hoped to rely had been published, making large ex-post-facto adjustments for “orbital decay” – which, however, proved insufficient to undermine the draft.
Frankly, it’s time for this unprincipled Humptidumptification of climate science to stop. The data are rewritten again and again until they mean whatever the Politburo want them to mean. Numerous climate datasets, now including the RSS dataset, have been tortured and contorted so often to force them into ever-less-plausible conformity with the Party Line that neither they nor the Party Line any longer possess any objective credibility whatsoever.
Let us end by looking at what really happened to global temperature during the Inconvenient Pause. Fig. 3 shows the UAH curve for the same period as Figs 1, 2.
Figure 3. The UAH record over the 18 years 9 months of the Inconvenient Pause
Looks pretty close to a Pause to me. Down the memory-hole with it, Comrades!
It is also worth looking at the entire run of satellite data for the 38 years 1979-2016. Fig. 4 shows RSS, using the latest version of the dataset; fig. 5 shows UAH.
Figure 4. The recently-revised RSS dataset from 1979-2016
Figure 5. The UAH dataset from 1979-2016
RSS now shows a warming almost 50% greater than the UAH warming.
Where stands the truth? You pays your money and you makes your choice: but, after the numerous alterations to the tamperature datasets, three points are clear.
First, on most of the global-temperature datasets, much of the warming of recent decades was not evident in the raw data and has been created by ex-post-facto manipulation of the data – whether for good reasons or bad. That raises the legitimate question whether our observational capacity is sufficiently reliable and sufficiently well resolved to provide useful illumination of the question whether our very small perturbation of a very large atmosphere will have a very small or a very large influence on future global temperature.
Secondly, no Inconvenient Pause will ever again be allowed to show in most datasets, even if there is one. Some parameter or another will be Karlamelized after the event, and numbly acquiescent pal-reviewers will check it not for scientific merit but simply for conformity to the Party Line, whereupon they will wave the paper through.
Thirdly, the rate of global warming, even after the ever-upward temperature tampering of almost all datasets (only UAH has gone the other way), is a lot less than predicted. RSS, having previously showed just 0.36 K global warming since 1990, now shows 0.52 K, near-coincident with IPCC’s least prediction made in 1990, but still well below its central prediction and a very long below its high-end prediction. In reality, even after the tampering, it’s a whole lot less bad than we thought.
Table 4 Observed and predicted global warming (K), 1990-2016
| Source | Observations over 27 years 1990-2016 | AR1 predictions | ||||||
| Dataset | RSS | NCEI | Mean | HadC | UAH | Min. | Mid | Max. |
| Linear trend, 1990-2016 | 0.52 |  |
 |
 |
 |
0.53 |  |
1.13 |
| Centennial equivalent trend | 1.91 |  |
 |
 |
 |
1.94 |  |
4.17 |
As Fig. 6 shows, even after all the tampering, the mean warming rate among two terrestrial and two satellite datasets continues to be somewhat below IPCC’s least medium-term prediction made in 1990. Yet IPCC, though in its Fifth Assessment Report it has near-halved those medium-term predictions, has unaccountably left its longer-term predictions unaltered: for otherwise it would be apparent to all that the real-world temperature data are turning the climate scare into a non-event.
Figure 6. Mean of the NCEI, HadCRUT4, RSS and UAH datasets, 1990-2016,
vs. IPCC medium-term warming predictions in 1990.
Regular readers will notice that I have been largely absent from these pages in recent months. This is partly owing to illness, and partly because I have had my head down working on a paper that identifies the chief reason why the rate of warming shown by the untampered data is so much less than what IPCC had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990.
The draft paper is now out for review. If the reviewers find sound reasons for rejecting it, I shall not trouble you with it further. But my team has gone to uncommon lengths to verify our conclusions, including consulting the world’s foremost expert on the application of the relevant physical formulism to the climate and getting our understanding of the theory confirmed empirically by experiments conducted at a government laboratory.
If our paper is published, and if the wider scientific community finds little of substance to cavil at, it will mark the end of the global-warming scare.
Here is the 3:45 mm:ss closing by the president. This is how United Nations get consensus:
https://youtu.be/elgXUk56LuE
A truly memorable moment for those who care. 🙂
Am I the only one ROFL?
You are hardly alone. What a farce! That’s the way they do it in authoritarian regimes, folks. They pretend that the proceedings are fair and open, but in reality nobody can object and there is no real vote. Stalin and Mao would be proud.
“NO objections”
@ur momisugly 1’57 there is an objector … ignored
@ur momisugly 2.10 he is removed by security
Good observation. 🙂
“profiteers of doom”! I love it- Lord Monckton certainly has a wonderful way with words.
And for those who wonder who really governed:
https://youtu.be/XB_lYP3SM_U
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
“The tools that you design, the financial structures that you develop, the blends that you are able to put together, all of that, in the next five years, will decide the quality of certainly the energy and certainly the quality of the global economy for the next thirty-five years, and hence the quality of life for everyone else for hundreds of years.”
The New Yorker – The Climate Summit of Money
“I am the daughter of a revolutionary and I feel very comfortable with revolutions,”
– All quotes above by Christina Figueres
There are other scenarios:
[C] reviewers will find UNSOUND reasons for rejecting it….
[D] reviewers sit on it, neither rejecting, or accepting it.
My money is on [D] to win. Maybe [C] to place.
I look forward to your paper being published and wish you success with it ,where is brenchley by the way.
Get well soon and drop your bombshell. You are fuelling our expectations once again.
“Frankly, it’s time for this unprincipled Humptidumptification of climate science to stop.”
Frankly, it´s time for science to define its principles.
It’s not like orbital decay is a new concept. Why has it taken so long to adjust for it? Settled science hardly!
The biggest problem I see climate science having is to keep coming up with new reasons to adjust the temps over coming decades. They have 1-2C of adjustments to come up with this century alone. Sooner or later people will ask questions.
The other question is, when you look at the natural phenomenon they use such as glaciers retreating and loss of ice, we know this has been occurring since the 19th century and what happens when these reach a new equilibrium.
The clock is now ticking which is why I suspect we are seeing the massive rush to get the gravy train running at full speed before it hits a major barrier.
Just an observation: If we can’t even agree on what the temperature readings are, how in the world can we agree that the earth is warming based on them?
“Hey presto! No more Inconvenient Pause! All gone! Vanished into thick air! Just like that! Amazing! Zowee! Look! A quarter of a degree of global warming where there was none before! It’s worse than we thought!”
Up to a point Lord Monckton.
Your “where there was none before” is not talking about the same period. From February 1997 to October 2016, the old preferred RSS shows about 0.12C warming, about half that of RSS 4, but not none.
“RSS now shows a warming almost 50% greater than the UAH warming.”
Yes, for UAH V6. 1.82°C/Century since `979, vs 1.22 for UAH V6 But if you go to the currently published UAH V5.6, it tells you that the same period trend is 0.16°C/Century. A good deal closer to RSS V4 than to UAH V6.
0.16 oC/century — may be it is 0.16 oC/decade — it is like all roads lead to —-
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Go ahead Dr. pop sMears. Make my day
Even in the “adjusted™” RSS v4 there is still a zero trend from mid 2001 to 2015
UAH should had been used due to better coverage around the poles. It is the leader in any data set where most of the poles are covered than anything else.
This is how HadCRUT4 airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/NHTemps_Difference_v_HADCRUT43_zps8xxzywdx.png
Notice the scientific evidence right in front of their very eyes, being the adjustments are much larger than the errors they claim of +/-0.1c. How do we even know if these adjustments are in favour of greatly increased errors?
The errors the surface data sets claimed has always been nonsense because changing the coverage of stations used, has huge errors much bigger than the instruments themselves. The errors in the global surface data sets are more like +/- 0.5c, basically putting doubt on if we are any warmer than the 1930’s and 1940’s.
The “airbrushing” of the recent “pause” in RSS LT data is far less egregious than the almost total elimination of the deep cooling during the third quarter of the last century that put the global land average in 1976 more than half a degree Celsius below its XX-century mean. It had climatologists of that era talking about about the possible inception of a new ice age.
Only need about 4 or 5 changes like the above graph and could easily adjust global data so the 1930’s and 1940’s were no different to recently.
That is the trick they have done removing more intense cooling periods.
Why do they do it? There are two examples shown below.
1) When a period warms to 0.5c (a), but then cools 0.5c (b) and finally warms 0.5c (c), results (a)=(c), b=0.5c cooler.
2) When a period warms to 0.5c (a), but then cools 0.5c adjusted to 0.1c after versions (b) and finally warms 0.5c (c), results in (b)=0.1c cooler than (a), but c = 0.4c warmer than (a).
3) When a period warms to 0.5c adjusted to 0.3c after versions (a), but then cools 0.5c adjusted to 0.1c after versions (b) and finally warms 0.5c adjusted to 0.7c after versions (c), results in (b)=0.1 cooler than (a), but c = 0.6c warmer than (a).
The second example is how they have conned people in making the recent warming period seem warmer than the 1930’s and 1940’s.
The third example is typical of something like the GISS especially has done and exaggerated warming even more by cooling the past and warming the present.
If 1% of the effort to verify the satellite data was devoted to verification of the surface data we could a least resolve several pre-satellite issues in the data
The real challenge going forward is a dense network of reliable, ground sensors We need about 100,000 seniors distributed between land sensors where people live, land sensors where no people live and ocean sensors. There also needs to be a supply of replacements and some program of maintenance and monitoring. Then we need a robust, fully open access to the raw data so that people living near a sensor can compare its data to other sources Where are the Internet-connected Billionaires when we need them.
“Where stands the truth? You pays your money and you makes your choice: but, after the numerous alterations to the tamperature datasets, three points are clear.”
LOL. “tamperature” = tampered temperature?
I think the reason for the model-data discrepancy past 1990 is that IPCC-supported GCMs use the wrong driver to project changes in Earth’s global temperature. CO2 is NOT controlling the climate! The observed warming for the past 130 years has likely been caused by a reduction in global cloud cover resulting from increasing solar magnetic activity, a mechanism that has nothing to do with so-called “greenhouse gases”. Available satellite data of cloud cover and global albedo and surface measurements of surface solar radiation since 1979 strongly support this hypothesis. See for example:
Herman et al. (2013) A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011). Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8505-8524
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/
Also, a recently published study shows that the thermal effect of a planetary atmosphere (known as “greenhouse effect”) is independent of atmospheric composition, and that the Greenhouse concept has been misconstrued since its inception in the early 1800s:
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. DOI: 10.4172/2573-458X.1000112
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
“tamperature”
Nice one. Just about sums up the wacky world of “climate science”.
I guess they finally got their way …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/
One simple physics problem that has so far been laid under the carpet involves relative humidity and temperature.
1) Even if global temperatures were certain on slight rises these depend on relative humidity.
2) If relative humidity stays the same or increases and global temperatures increase, then there is very good evidence that energy has increased in the system and therefore this trend can be trusted.
3) If relative humidity decreases and global temperatures increase, then there is huge doubt that global temperatures have actually risen at all.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Atmospheric relative humidity has declined and therefore less energy in the system requires the same temperature levels as before. This questions that even the slight global warming observed previously has been due to a warming planet and is in fact been caused by lower energy levels required for similar temperatures.
This moves towards scientific evidence confirming the pause even further and that any slight warming detected as only occurred due to relative humidity declining. Therefore has nothing to do with a warming planet, but incorrect measurements of confirming energy changes not necessarily temperature changes.
To all the commenters remember if the graphs were rounded to 1 degree they would be a straight line.
That where all this talk goes out the window for the average person.
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE PRIMER
Global Warming is Dead
The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite measurements has stopped since 1998, even while CO2 concentrations have continued to increase. It has become increasingly obvious CO2 is not driving the warming, the climate, or anything else.
The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:
* ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap has survived decades of predictions of its demise.
* sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.
* annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.
* Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
* Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes, underbrush stockpiles and interference with nature by humans.
Climate Change has no Evidence
There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change are anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.
* Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts. Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another or anything else. Anecdotes are not proof.
* Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.
* Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in JHS science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.
* Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.
To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.
The Historical Temperature Record
For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no where near any temperature tipping point.
The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP), the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice, advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can.
The Recent Temperature Record
The temperature data for the last 100 years has been twisted and contorted by scientists to comply with the global warming agenda. Under the guise of ‘homogenizing’ data sets, NOAA has chopped off the cooler temperatures of the late 1800s, thus making trends afterwards look warmer. Also, the percentage of fake temperature measurement stations since 1993 has increased from 5% to 43%, over an 800% increase. A new fake station was created in Africa which helped conclude that 2016 was the warmest year ever. This fake science from fake data has created an ever-increasing temperature record, when the satellite data says since 1998 there has been no warming at all.
The Historical CO2 Record
About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.) Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2 increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.
The Recent CO2 Record
The famous Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in 1958, coincidentally at a historic low CO2 level of 315 ppm. In 1942 and again in 1822 CO2 was 440 ppm, 40 ppm higher than today. (Ernst-Georg Beck, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis By Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 2, 2007, Fig. 2).
For the last 1400 years there have been 6 distinctive cycles of CO2 concentration as registered in plant leaf stomata proxy data. Each cycle is about 230 years in duration with a 300 ppm minimum and 400 ppm maximum. As of 2016 400 ppm was reached, the top of the cycle. If history repeats, expect this deVries cycle to reverse and produce lower CO2 readings over the next 115 or so years.
To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent paltry CO2 increases is ludicrous.
Temperatures and Fossil Fuel Use
For the last 150 years there has not always been a correlation between fossil fuel use and temperature. Between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 increased, fossil fuel use leveled off and slightly decreased. (Klyashtorin and Lyubushim, Energy & Environment, Vol 14, No 6, Fig 1). So, for 30 years while less fossil fuel was burned, more CO2 was being generated. The question is: how can this be?
Temperatures and Solar Irradiance
There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods within the last 250 years. These periods all march to the tune of changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993). Isn’t the correlation obvious? It’s the Sun, not CO2.
Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)
Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other 99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a spectral absorption bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only 0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be one part out of 357, or barely noticeable.
Planetary Mechanics – THE Driver of Climate Change
Planetary mechanics is the study of orbiting celestial bodies, including changes to the solar system barycenter, spin orbit coupling, and changes in angular momentum. It is the very interaction of the motion of the planets, Sun and moon which dictate our climate and our weather. This isn’t theory. This is astrophysics.
Jupiter, Venus and Earth are called the Tidal Planets for good reason. They control the Sun’s tide and its 11 year sunspot cycle. There are many harmonics of this basic 11 year Schwab cycle. There is the 22 year Hale magnetic cycle. There is the 44 year Solar Conveyor Belt cycle. Every 88 years there is the Gleisberg cycle – an amplitude modulation of Schwab cycles. There is the 230 deVries cycle. The 1,440 year Bond or Ice Debris Cycle. The 2,200 year Hallstadt Cycle.
There are numerous other cycles built from combinations of solar, lunar and planetary cycles. Every 18 years there is the Lunar Tidal Cycle which corresponds to abundance cycles on Earth. About every 60 years there is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation cycle, the most powerful climate force on the planet.
Then there is Uranus and Neptune (U-N) with their 178 year orbit beat cycle. The Sun also operates in 360 year cycles, a harmonic of the U-N cycle. Each 360 year cycle is composed of Regular Oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. This totally predictable 360 year cycle has resulted in the Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and other unnamed Minimums within the past two millennia.
In 2009, we entered the next Grand Solar Minimum – the Landscheidt Minimum. This isn’t unfounded speculation. This is traceable, predictable planetary mechanics (Duhau and de Jager, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999). From this point forward be prepared for relentless colder winter temperatures which will reach bottom around 2040. Along the way there will be ever-increasing fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages, famines and loss of life of millions. The next Little Ice Age has begun. No amount of pithy CO2 increase is going to provide enough life-saving warmth.
Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. The planets control the climate of the Sun which, combined with the Moon, control the climate on the Earth. CO2 is only a flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride.
Climate Change is Big Business
The myth of global warming, climate change, climate change catastrophe – or whatever they are calling it today – continues, because of the trillions of dollars that would be lost and millions of leaf-raking jobs eliminated, if this charade were to be exposed.
* Banks and brokerage houses reap huge commissions from it.
* Scam artists like Maurice Strong thrive on it, creating schemes like carbon trading which suck billions of dollars from consumers’ wallets.
* Politicians need it to save us from imaginary hobgoblins and to justify tax increases to fund largesse programs that garner votes.
* Scientists keep busy by grazing at the trough of free grant money made available, but only if it can be shown that man is the cause.
* Corporations need it to sell cures for which there is no disease, and fatten up their bottom lines.
* The alternative energy, Green Building and sustainability industries came into existence and thrive off of it.
* The news media needs it to keep the frenzy going, the ratings up, and ad revenue coming in.
* The United Nations needs it to forge its role as the leader in One World Governance.
* Environmentalists, anti-industrialists, and other Communists need it in order to cut the legs out from underneath the evil, Capitalist United States and level the playing field for the world‘s less fortunate nations.
This is the hideous symbiosis of individuals, groups, businesses and governments that need the myth of climate change kept alive for their very financial survival. They are not going to go away, so long as they can continue to mainline on the juice. It is time to yank the tube out of their arms.
And one last thing: According to ice core records, the CO2 increases occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2 doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising water temperatures cause CO2 to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2 is not a driver of climate. CO2 is a passenger.
Get the facts visit:
http://www.windpowerfraud.com
http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com
When I study the temperature record I see the pause in continuous warming starting in or about 2002-2004 not 1998. I believe that El Ninos and La Ninas are distractions that mislead the viewer into misinterpretations of the path of average temperature. They can be ignored for purposes of viewing the path of average temperature change because they are short duration climate events whose cause is known.